Sunday, September 30, 2012

President Obama laments that he has been unable to accomplish his goals
because of the "Republican Congress". (President Obama seems to forget that he has a Democrat majority in the Senate) Does he have a legitimate
argument? Let's look at recent past Presidents.

When President
Reagan was elected to his first term, he had a Republican Senate, but an
overwhelming Democratic House led by Tip O'Neill, a strong ideologue
for his party. Yet President Reagan was able to push through his
economic growth agenda that led to an unprecedented recovery from much
worse economic circumstances than Obama inherited. In addition, he
famously worked with Tip O'Neill to pass social security reform.
At no time did anyone hear Ronald Reagan blame anyone for any failure.

When Bill Clinton was elected, like President Obama, he had Democrat
majorities in both houses of Congress. Also, like Obama, during the mid-term
elections in 1996, the House went Republican, but unlike, Obama, the Senate also
went Republican. Bill Clinton had to work with Newt Gingrich as
Speaker of the House of Representatives - an ideologue, basically, a right-wing Tip
O'Neill. Bill Clinton most likely wasn't happy, but he nonetheless set out to work with Newt Gingrich and his colleagues and accomplished major
welfare reform as well as spending cuts that led to a surplus.

George
Bush had a Republican majorities in his first term and Democrat
majorities in his second term. He famously worked with Ted Kennedy to
push through bipartisan education reform. He never complained that the Democrats blocked his economic agenda during his second term and attempts at reforming the federal mortgage system.

Now to the current President.
President Obama had overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress when he came to office
in 2009. He worked with the Democrats to pass an $800 billion stimulus
package that ended up costing over $300,000 for each job it supposedly
created. (Although according to Bob Woodward's book, he apparently did not take a leadership role.)
He is credited with pushing through Obamacare, although it might be
better-named Pelosi care as he never proposed his own plan, but allowed Congress
to come up with a plan. He presided over TARP II which led to more bailouts including the government becoming an owner of the General Motors. Obama had no trouble passing his
agenda during the first two years and our ballooning debt and deficits are a testament to that fact..

Then the midterms came at the end of 2010 with voters
soundly rejecting Obama's agenda through an election of an overwhelming
majority of Republicans in the House. President Obama's first foray into
working with the new House was to state, "The Republicans can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in the back." A leader doesn't lead by marginalizing an elected opposition. A
President leads by reaching out. Yet there are many instances of Obama
lashing out from the beginning. Bob Woodward in his new book speaks about how Obama failed
to lead during the debt deal negotiations. During the negotiations
with Boehner (an ideological midget compared to Gingrich, O'Neill and
Kennedy), Boehner had agreed to revenue increases put forth by Obama, but Obama reneged on his offer and asked for more. Boehner threw up
his hands at the bad faith and Obama became enraged. The debt talks failed.
Not only can Obama not reach out to Republicans, he cannot reach out to
his own party in the Senate to get his budget passed. Obama sent a
budget which was defeated 97-0 by the Senate. Moreover, his Democratic Senate has failed to
pass any budget for over three years in contravention of the law. Even one of his own Democrats said that Obama is alienating and arrogant. Now,
during the campaign we are hearing that its all the Republicans fault, he
can't change Washington from the inside. President Obama's lament is really an
admission of failed leadership. And he wants us to re-elect him?

So would Mitt Romney fare any better? Consider that Mitt Romney was governor of a state whose legislature was 85% Democrat. However, he managed to work with the Democrats to eliminate a billion dollar deficit, end with a surplus and a "rainy-day" fund of over 2 billion, lower unemployment to 4.6% and raise Massachusetts' credit rating.

Obama has demonstrated that he is not a leader. He has demonstrated that he cannot work with ideological opponents or even those who tend to agree with him.

Romney, on the other hand, has a history of working successfully with political opposition even when such opposition is overwhelming. He has a history of problem solving, both in the private sector and in the public sector. And unlike, Obama, he brings to the presidency executive experience. I am confident that if he is elected President, you will not hear Romney blaming Democrats for their or his shortcomings. You will see Romney working with Congress toward solutions to improve America's woeful economy and debt problems.

The Bayley Hazen military road, a brain child of Gen. George Washington, runs through our remote Northeast Kingdom town on the way to Canada. Charlie and Deb Bucknam, the doyen and doyenne of the clan, and their daughters and sons in law Jen and Andy Black, and Serena and Paul Varley, are authors. We have a forward looking conservative perspective which we hope you enjoy.

About Us

The Bayley Hazen military road, a brain child of Gen. George Washington, runs through our remote Northeast Kingdom town on the way to Canada. Charlie and Deb Bucknam, the doyen and doyenne of the clan, and their daughters and sons in law Jen and Andy Black, and Serena and Paul Varley, are authors. We have a forward looking conservative perspective which we hope you enjoy.